From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755730AbcL0Wdl (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Dec 2016 17:33:41 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:57730 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754241AbcL0WdW (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Dec 2016 17:33:22 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,418,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="47684636" Message-ID: <1482878000.106950.10.camel@ranerica-desktop> Subject: Re: [v2 2/7] x86/mpx: Fail when implicit zero-displacement is used along with R/EBP From: Ricardo Neri To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , X86 ML , linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org, wine-devel@winehq.org, Dave Hansen , Adam Buchbinder , Colin Ian King , Lorenzo Stoakes , Qiaowei Ren , "Ravi V . Shankar" Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:33:20 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20161224013745.108716-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <20161224013745.108716-3-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2016-12-23 at 17:58 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Ricardo Neri > wrote: > > Section 2.2.1.2 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software > > Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when memory addressing with no > > explicit displacement (i.e, mod part of ModR/M is 0), a SIB byte is used > > and the base of the SIB byte points to (R/EBP) (i.e., base = 5), an > > explicit displacement of 0 must be used. > > > > Make the address decoder to return -EINVAL in such a case. > > > > Cc: Dave Hansen > > Cc: Adam Buchbinder > > Cc: Colin Ian King > > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes > > Cc: Qiaowei Ren > > Cc: Ravi V. Shankar > > Cc: x86@kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Neri > > --- > > arch/x86/mm/mpx.c | 7 +++++++ > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c > > index 6a75a75..71681d0 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c > > @@ -120,6 +120,13 @@ static int get_reg_offset(struct insn *insn, struct pt_regs *regs, > > > > case REG_TYPE_BASE: > > regno = X86_SIB_BASE(insn->sib.value); > > + if (regno == 5 && X86_MODRM_RM(insn->modrm.value) == 0) { > > + WARN_ONCE(1, "An explicit displacement is required when %sBP used as SIB base.", > > + (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64) && insn->x86_64) ? > > + "R13 or R" : "E"); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + > > Now that I've read the cover letter, I see what's going on. This > should not warn -- user code can easily trigger this deliberately. OK, I'll remove it. Are you concerned about the warning printing the calltrace, even only once?